God is a Meanie III (Judgment of Pharaoh and the Egyptians)

Image via Wikipedia

But Pharaoh responded, "Who is Yahweh that I should obey Him by letting Israel go? I do not know anything about Yahweh, and besides, I will not let Israel go."
Exodus 5:2 (HCSB)

This is not an insignificant verse. There people that will reject God as a matter of course in this life. I must admit that I can understand the deception of sin the blinds a person to the love of God. It is often pointed out "Why would God punish Egypt for the sin that was Pharaoh?" and why would God punish Pharaoh when He "Hardened his heart." When we consider these comments we have to understand that they are observed and spoken through a filter of disowning God. There are many rationalizations that people can give to hate God. And they will just to assuage their consciences. Yet in there passion to find a reason to hate God they reveal within themselves the work of the Holy Spirit. The intensity of the reaction is out of sync with what they say that they believe. Namely that the Bible is a book of myths.

Let's take a look the two complaints and see if they are legitimate. As I have said before most people are not interested in what the Bible says. They form an opinion and will tell you what the Bible says often after reading or hearing about it somewhere else. In case there are those that are interested this verse quoted above is very important.

This was the very first recorded interaction with Pharaoh. Now as near as I can tell Pharaoh is rejecting God of his own accord. The hardening of his heart has not yet occurred. Not only did he reject God, but he also made things worse for the Hebrews.

But he said, "You are slackers. Slackers! That is why you are saying, 'Let us go sacrifice to the Lord.' Now get to work. No straw will be given to you, but you must produce the same quantity of bricks."
Exodus 5:17-18 (HCSB)

Hardness of Heart was a condition that preceded the plagues.

Then the Lord said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is hard: he refuses to let the people go. "
Exodus 7:14 (HCSB)

Which continued after the first sign.

Also the sacred scribes of Egypt did so with their occultisms; hence the heart of Pharaoh was steadfast, and he did not hearken to them, just as Yahweh had spoken.
Exodus 7:22 (CLT)

(Side Note: I am using Concordant Literal Version for this part because the translation intends to bring a literal word for word understanding to the text)

Notice the statement the heart of the Pharaoh was steadfast. Still at this point we do not see God hardening Pharaoh's heart.

When Pharaoh saw that there came to be an interval, he caused his heart to glory, and he hearkened not to them, just as Yahweh had spoken.
Exodus 8:15

Pharaoh "Caused his heart to glory." That is he became proud!

The sacred scribes said to Pharaoh: This is the finger of Elohim! Yet the heart of Pharaoh was steadfast, and he did not hearken to them just as Yahweh had spoken
Exodus 8:19

Here it starts to get more interesting. The religious leaders in Pharaoh's court have a change of heart. They recognized they were not dealing with a magic trick, but in fact where going toe to toe with God Himself. Yet when they pointed it out to Pharaoh his response was to remain steadfast. Notice God has yet to harden Pharaoh's heart.

Yet Pharaoh gloried in his heart, even at this time, and he did not dismiss the people.
Exodus 8:31

Again Pharaoh became prideful. No hardening by God Yet!

Then Pharaoh sent, and behold, not even one had died from the cattle of Israel. Yet the heart of Pharaoh gloried, and he did not dismiss the people.
Exodus 9:7

After five of the plagues Pharaoh was still holding pride within his heart. Yet no hardening as of yet by God. But that was about to change.

Yet Yahweh made the heart of Pharaoh steadfast, so that he did not hearken to them just as Yahweh had spoken to Moses.
Exodus 9:12

Here after many attempts to change the heart of Pharaoh do we see that God is now hardening his heart. You see if a person does not want God, God eventually gives them over to the hardness of his heart. There comes a point at which the person's rebellion serves only to deepen the judgment they have against themselves. There is only one cure, humbling themselves before God and turning their heart toward Him. Otherwise you continue on in the hardness of heart and God hardens your heart. My point is this you harden your heart to God long before He hardens your heart to long for sinful rebellion. It is when the conscience becomes seared that this type of hardness sets in. As long as there is a vestige of moral sense left there is a hope for repentance. In this case Pharaoh had crossed over. From this point forward his doom was certain.

Then Yahweh said to Moses: Rise early in the morning, station yourself before Pharaoh, and say to him, Thus says Yahweh, Elohim of the Hebrews: Dismiss My people that they may serve Me. For at this time I am sending all My strokes onto your heart and your servants and your people in order that you shall know that there is no one such as Me in the entire earth.
Exodus 9:13-14

Notice in this warning God specifically identifies that He is going to strike the Pharaoh�s heart. In one way I believe that God is giving Pharaoh one last chance to repent. Sadly he did not turn. However, some of the Egyptians began to repent.

The one fearful of the word of Yahweh among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his cattle flee to the houses.
Exodus 9:20

Yet those that did not take the warning to heart did not repent.

Yet he who was not setting his heart on the word of Yahweh, forsook his servants and his cattle in the field.
Exodus 9:21

Here we see God showing grace to the Egyptians that heeded His word. Now that some how gets left out when those making a case against God. God is gracious to the humble and upholds the repentant.

Now Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail and the thundering sounds had halted, yet he continued to sin and made his heart glory, he and his servants.
Exodus 9:34
Yahweh said to Moses: Enter to Pharaoh, for I have made his heart glory and the hearts of his servants that I may set these My signs among them,
Exodus 10:1

Who continued to sin? Pharaoh did. Who continued with a prideful heart? Pharaoh did. See God's hardening was something that Pharaoh already had in his heart. At this point it was clear that the Pharaoh's intent was hardness against God. It is at this point that God begins to harden the heart of Pharaoh to show the his signs against them. From this point on God hardened Pharaoh's heart (See Exodus 10:20, 27, 11:10).

This applies to us. God makes it clear to us either in our consciences, basic decency toward other human beings, His word (the Bible) what His expectations are for our lives. We also experience the consequences of choosing to go against God's ways. We may not have the same dramatic experience that Pharaoh had, but we have our own conviction that things are not right. Then we have a choice. Will we turn from missing the mark in our lives or will we with great pride in our hearts and stubbornness in our soul continue on our sinful way. The story is not over yet though.

I had mentioned that some of the Egyptians had repented and heeded the word of God (Exodus 9:20). What is even more interesting is that there was an ethnically diverse people that left Egypt.

An ethnically diverse crowd also went up with them, along with a huge number of livestock, both flocks and herds. The people baked the dough they had brought out of Egypt into unleavened loaves, since it had no yeast; for when they had been driven out of Egypt they could not delay and had not prepared any provisions for themselves.
Exodus 12:38-39 (HCSB)

Wait just a minute! Why did I not learn this in Sunday School? I am not sure why, but there it is. It would not have been possible for the family of Jacob (Israel) to be ethnically diverse. So what are we to make of the peculiar statement. I believe that being a Jew was an act of faith. You see the Passover required that people spread blood of a lamb over the door posts (Exodus 12:22-23). It was this act of faith that resulted in deliverance. Being covered by the Lamb's Blood (an act of faith) demonstrated that you were part of "Spiritual Israel." If you were a Jew, but did not put blood on your door post death visited your home. By reasoning then it is possible that if you were Egyptian (or other race) and you put blood on your doorpost then you were saved from death visiting your home. That seems radical, but it was the very thing that God said he would do. He did not say death would Passover decedents of Jacob. He said that death would Passover those that faithfully put the lamb's blood on the door post. That is why I believe there was an "ethnically diverse" people who left Egypt. It was the faithful followers of God that left. It was "Spiritual Israel." No doubt that the majority was ethnic Israel, but it would seem to me at least some were not ethnically Israel as well (Galatians 3:7 and others).

It seems then in response to those that say God is being unjust by punishing Pharaoh or the people of Egypt we have a very different picture than they would assume. What is really going on when we look at the passages dealing with Pharaoh's heart, is that Pharaoh started out hard. It was his pride and stubbornness that got him into trouble. Only after it was clear that Pharaoh was not going to repent did God harden his heart. God did this to judge the hardness that was already there. Interestingly those that have taken this position that God is unjust are in the same boat as Pharaoh. Without humility and brokenness they stand judged. Without a change they risk become hardened (calcified) against the things of God. Also it seems that Egyptians were judged not for Pharaoh's sin, but rather for following after Pharaoh (Who is divine according to Egyptian religion) and Egypt's gods. Those that repented and heeded the word of God were saved.

The same choice that existed then is before us today. Will we follow other gods and religions, or will we make God, Yahweh, the Savior and Lord of our lives. It is accomplished through the sacrifice. Since we live after the advent of the Cross it is Jesus who is our Passover Lamb. And it is faith in Jesus Christ that saves.

God Bless You

~BJ

Related articles

• I Did Not Expect That (bjs-spot.blogspot.com)
• Lord, Is My Heart Stubborn? Exodus 7:14 (dianneguthmuller.com)

Defense of the Faith vs. Avoiding Empty Arguments

Image via Wikipedia

And who will harm you if you are deeply committed to what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear or be disturbed, but honor the Messiah as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. However, do this with gentleness and respect, keeping your conscience clear, so that when you are accused, those who denounce your Christian life will be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.
1 Peter 3:13-17 (HCSB)

This passage is often cited as the basis for the area of theology called apologetics.  The word "defense" in "...ready to give a defense..." is the Greek word "apologia."  Often apologists feel compelled to go beyond a explanation of why they believe to an apologetic for God.  Let me say in no uncertain terms, "God does not need me or any other person to give a defense for His acts or inaction." 

If a person asks me why I believe the Bible is clear that I must be ready to explain.  My faith must not be based on some whim, passion, or feeling.  It is to be understood.  "Reason" in this passage is the Greek word "logos."  This is a very important word.  In the secular philosophy at the time the 1 Peter 3:15 was written logos meant a reasoned discourse or mode of persuasion based on reason. 

Definition of rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Of the modes of persuasion some belong strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do not. The rhetorician finds the latter kind (viz. witnesses, contracts, and the like) ready to his hand. The former kind he must provide himself; and it has three divisions -- (1) the speaker's power of evincing a personal character which will make his speech credible (ethos ); (2) his power of stirring the emotions of his hearers (pathos ); (3) his power of proving a truth, or an apparent truth, by means of persuasive arguments (logos ).
Rhetoric -Aristotle

So then as Christians we ought to be able to provide a reasonable statement of what we believe. 

However, we begin to cross over to empty argument when we attempt to defend the actions of God. 

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding irreverent, empty speech and contradictions from the "knowledge" that falsely bears that name. By professing it, some people have deviated from the faith. Grace be with all of you.
1 Timothy 6:20-21 (HCSB)

Notice Paul admonishes Timothy to guard what is entrusted to him.  What has been entrusted to him?  The gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:11, 15).  How does one guard the gospel?  For the most part I believe that one guards the Gospel by being prepared to give a reasonable defense.  He adds to the admonition avoid irreverent, empty speech, and contradictions.  Most arguments that come from unbelievers usually can be classified as falling into one of these arguments. 

Irreverent Arguments

In other translations the word "bebelos" is irreverent, profane, and wrong.  Profane is a blatant disregard for things that are sacred.  It is often abusive, crude, and obscene.  These are to be avoided.  One reason I believe they are to be avoided is because it is difficult to come away from a mudslinging match and not get at least a little bit soiled.  Another reason is that it fails on the "logos" approach.  Irreverent arguments are emotional appeals ("pathos" arguments).  Emotional appeals can be persuasive to a person that is open to what you are saying.  However, a profane person is not likely at all to be moved no matter how emotionally appealing you make the Gospel.

Empty Arguments

"Kenodoxos" is translated empty speech, empty sounds, prattling, vain babbling, and foolish talk.  It comes from a compound word in the Greek meaning "vain-glory."  Vainglory is an old English word that describe being empty of honor or empty boasting.  There are some things that are unworthy of even a response.  I think these are the type of arguments that Paul is describing with this word.  This type of arguing has more to do with making the arguer puffed up with pride.  In some ways it relies on the credibility of the person making the argument ("ethos" argument). 

Another way to look at empty arguments is one that lacks substance and/or commits a logical fallacy.  I would say that the most common form would be an appeal to authority.  The assumption that because a person in authority believes something that it must be true.  Others would be sweeping generalizations, appeal to ignorance, affirming the consequent (very common with evolutionists), cherry picking, attacking the person (ad hominem), ad Hitlerium (making the case that Hitler was a Christian), ad Crusades (Making the crusades out to be normative Christianity), and others.  It is these empty arguments that we are to avoid because then do not present a reasonable argument for or against the Gospel (ie "logos" argument).

Contradiction Arguments

"Antithesis" is translated contradiction, antipathies, and oppositions.  These arguments were from the "'Knowledge' that falsely bears the name."  Some would point to the Gnostic Hersey as the ones that are opposing with a false knowledge.  Gnostics believed that "true knowledge" was process of internal intuitive knowing.  This true knowledge superseded all other forms of knowledge.  They also view the material world as evil and the spiritual world as good.  They stood in opposition to the Gospel because they said that Jesus (though a heavenly messenger) could not be God in the flesh because God being good could not take an evil material form. 

This phrase can also be taken in a broader form.  In my experience there are three dispositions that people have who do not believe in or know the Gospel.  One is of curiosity.  That is to say they do not know if it is true, but they are curious to find out if it is.  Second is disinterest.  They do not care one way or the other if it is true.  Third is opposition.  They are actively against the gospel as being true.  It is the last group that hold to a spirit of contradiction.  They are not looking to see if it is true.  They are looking to find reasons why it is not true.  Their position is to stand in opposition no matter what.  At times these people do get carried away in there opposition.  They will invent contradictions where there is no apparent contradiction.    They place their own understanding, their own knowledge ahead of the Gospel.  They are puffed up in knowledge.  It is these types of arguments that Paul is warning Timothy to avoid. 

---

---

By the way Christians can fall into irreverent, empty, and contradictory arguments.  I think one of the reasons Paul instructs Timothy to avoid such arguments is that they are so easy to fall into ourselves.  When we become irreverent, use empty rhetoric, or engage in a spirit of contradiction we do the Gospel a disservice.  People are more likely to look at us rather than the Savior we are attempting to share.  Humility, gentleness, kindness, thoughtfulness are certainly qualities that we want to uphold as we attempt to give a reasonable explanation for what we believe.   In short if someone has a genuine interest in learning about what you believe then be prepared to share what and why you believe.  On the other hand if a person is only seeking to rude, empty, or contradictory avoid these discussions. 

 

God Bless You
~BJ

God is a Meanie II (2 Kings 2:23-24; God Kills Little Children)

Image via Wikipedia

The last passage Numbers 31 was a favorite, but my experience is that this passage is a second favorite of atheists.  Atheist would have us to understand that a Prophet of God had is feelings hurt by a group of unruly kindergartners (or grade schoolers) followed by God's directing two bears to come kill them.  Unfortunately they are not interested in details so they miss the point of this verse they also jump to conclusions about that it is saying. 

As I have said before, "Why is it that atheists are so interested in what an imaginary deity does?"  The level of interest in these God is a Meanie passages from the Bible seem sort of bizarre.  I do not believe for a second that people who are considering faith in God pick up a Bible and come to this passage in particular and say, "Well I was considering that God might exist, but this passage is a deal breaker.  After reading that I am convinced He does not exist."  Really?  Let me suspend my incredulity and assume that there is an atheist that has a genuine interest in this passage. 

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking up the path, some small boys came out of the city and harassed him, chanting, "Go up, baldy! Go up, baldy!" He turned around, looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two female bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the children.
2 Kings 2:23-24 (HCSB)

A straight reading of this passage seems to favor the interpretation of the atheists.  I must admit that it seems to describe a serious consequence for a rather trivial offence and it does appear based on the language we are dealing with little children.  Lets dig a little deeper into the passage though to see if first impressions are accurate.

"Small Boys" 

The phrase in Hebrew "qtnim norim" is translated in this passage "little boys", "little children", and "little lads."  Depending on which English translation you are using.  Since there is some variation between translations that usually indicates that it is a difficult phase to translate.  Looking elsewhere in the scripture the word "little" refers to size and relative importance in many cases.  When it is used to describe a person it is often used to establish birth order namely the youngest in the family without regard for a specific age.  The word translated "boys" is translated "Young men" (76 times) or "servant" (54 times) and then "child" (44 times), "lad" (33 times), "youth" (6 times).  It would seem that this term is roughly equivalent to adolescent or youth.  

Looking and the instances these two words occur in combination we discover it is used in 6 passages in addition to this one (1 Samuel 16:11; 1 Samuel 20:35; 1 Kings 3:7, 1 Kings 11:17; 2 Kings 5:14; Isaiah 11:6).  The first reference was to David who was tending sheep at the time.  We know that David was able to kill a lion and a bear while he was tending sheep so it is unlikely he was a young child while doing this (see 1 Samuel 17:34-35).  I would put David's age between 15 and 18 at the time.  The second reference was a companion of Jonathan.  He was old enough to retrieve arrows and to return home on his own.  It is difficult to say how old that makes him.  The third reference Solomon uses to describe himself when he is coronated as king.  Solomon was 18-21 when he became king.  The forth reference was to Hadad who escaped, but there are not real clues to his actual age.  The fifth is describing youthful skin.  And the sixth is describing a child leader in poetic (prophetic) language.  So based on the times we can identify and age range it would put our "small boys" in the 15-21 age range. 

"Children"

In verse 24 it says that 42 children were attacked by these bears.  The word children in this case again seems to be a generic child without a specific idea of age.  Two examples would be Daniel 1:4, 17 and 1 Kings 12:8.  In these cases it is translated "young men."  Daniel and his companions were taken to Babylon somewhere between the ages of 12 and 18 to serve in the royal court.  Rehoboam (and young men he grew up with) was a mere 41 years old when he became king (1 Kings 14:21).  So with this term we have an age range of middle childhood all the way up to age 41. 

With that kind of age range it seems to change our understanding of this passage.  It seems that it was a mob of at least 42 young people came out to greet the Prophet of God. 

"Go up, baldy.  Go up, Baldy"

Where is it that these children wanted Elisha to Go up to?  It would seem that they had heard about Elijah (Elisha elder companion) being caught up into the sky.  Elijah was not always popular and I suppose that some were happy to see him go.  I believe that is the message being sent here.  They want Elisha to leave so they are mocking him (and God) in regard to Elijah being caught up to God.  "Baldy" seems a strange insult.  In the culture of the time though "it was using an extreme curse, for the prophet being a young man, may not actually have been bald-headed."1

How serious was this?

So it is possible if not likely that this was not a group of third graders, but rather a mob of adolescents.  But boys will be boys and we cannot make much of them being rude to Prophet of God.  God kills for rudeness. 

First it is not clear that these young people were killed.  They were mauled, but it does not say they were killed.  Is it possible that they were attacked but not killed by these bears?  I would think that it is possible and likely that is what happened here.  If they were killed then why would you not say they were killed.

Second a mob a teens is a serious matter.  I came across this story as I was preparing this post.

This story is eerily similar to this event in the Bible.  These youth were insulting and threatening.  They were age of 15-17.  They were able to subdue a Marine.  Think about if a handful of teens could take down a Marine then a mob of 42 would seem a serious threat to Elisha.  If we were to apply the atheist interpretation of the Bible to this event here then we would have say that the bystander that flashed his gun to scare off the teens and the police that tasered the teens were meanies also.  Again if you are looking for moral high ground it seems very strange to side with these unruly youth over the Prophet of God.

 

---

1 Fred H. Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands, (Chicago: Moody press, 1980), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 96.

God is a Meanie (Numbers 31; Genocide and Sexual Slavery)

Image via Wikipedia

Another tactic of Atheists is to point to the times that God in His divine wrath judges people in the Bible.  They suggest that God is misogynistic, homicidal, genocidal, tyrant.  One of favorite passages of the Bible for many atheists is Numbers 31.  In this passage the Israelites God commands, "Execute vengeance... against the Midianites."  The Israelite men of war attack this tribe of Midianites kill the men and capture the women and children.  Moses becomes upset because they have allowed the women to live.  He orders the execution of all the women and male children.  The female children are allowed to live.  I have often been told that if you ask someone their favorite passage you can learn a lot about a person.  I am not saying this applies in this case as an atheist does not believe, but it does give pause to think.

My first question to the Atheist would be, why so much vehemence against this ancient text?  I have read several translated ancient texts and have come across stories much more violent and much more unjust than this one appears.  Why so much energy into a fictional story about a mythical God and a people who probably never did any of this anyway?  The only explanations that makes sense to me is either they have doubts about their atheism and pointing to passages like this makes them feel better, they wish to win converts to their way of thinking (faith), or they are engaged in religious like indoctrination of other young atheists. On the last one it is a control technique to create cognitive dissonance through some emotional appeal, then resolve that dissonance by saying you have the answer.  In short this argument is an emotional one more than a rational one.

Now if you ever catch an atheist willing to talk about their favorite passage you will find they are not interested in understanding the background of this passage and only want to judge it on the surface.  Their conclusion is that the passage describes genocide and the sexual slavery of women.  Yet when you try to help them to greater understanding of the passage they will not be bothered by details.  For "free thinkers" they are very narrow-minded.  In case you might find yourself in a discussion about atheists favorite passage, let's take a look at these two claims, but first a little background to the story. 

God told Moses to "Execute vengeance."  For what?  What had the Midianite people done that was so evil that God felt the need to command vengeance?    There is a clue in the passage. 

Yet they are the ones who, at Balaam's advice, incited the Israelites to unfaithfulness against the Lord in the Peor incident, so that the plague came against the Lord's community.
Numbers 31:16 (HCSB)

There are many clues really.  Who is Balaam?  What was his advice? And what was the Peor incident?  Who is Baal Peor?  If we can understand these questions then we can have a better understanding of the events that lead to the execution of this group of people.  I would add one more question "Who are the Midianites?"

Who is Balaam?

Balaam was a man who had a gift of prophecy.  Balak the King of Moab at the time when to Balaam when the Israelites came up out of Egypt (Numbers 22:5).  He desired that the Prophet would curse the Israelites for him, because he felt threatened by them (Numbers 22:6).  Balaam heard from God that he could not curse the Israelites because God had blessed them (Numbers 22:12).  After several attempts by Balak and tempted by the promise of riches Balaam decided to go (2 Peter 2:15).  There is some misunderstanding of Numbers 22:20-22 (NASB) in that it seems as though God gives permission and then becomes angry with Balaam.  The permission to go was given conditionally.  God says "If the men come to call you, rise up and go."  However, Balaam the next morning "Arose and saddle his donkey.."  It seems that Balaam was all too eager to go with them and did not wait on them to call him.  Instead his heart was in to going with them to curse the Israelites and receive his reward.  God Judges Balaam's heart and is angry.

So then Balaam goes to Balak to curse the people of Israel.  He cannot do this since God has blessed them.  In the end Balaam also blesses Israel and curses the kingdoms of Canaan including the Moabites (Numbers 24:17). 

What was his advice?

There is no record of what Balaam said to Balak in Numbers.  However, in the traditional view, explained in Revelation 2:14, Balaam not being able to curse them (being restrained by God) suggested that if the Balak could convince the people to prostitute themselves to the men of Israel and get them to worship foreign gods that they would be able to subvert the will of God.  

What was the  Peor incident?

The plan worked.  The women prostituted themselves (Numbers 25:1) and the Israelites began to align themselves with Baal (God) of Peor (Numbers 25:2-3).  This was a serious matter and had it been unchallenged it could have altered the course of history.  If the Isaelites (God's chosen people) had followed after Baal, God's final plan of redemption would have been thwarted.  So Moses acted swiftly and had those that converted to Baal of Peor killed (Numbers 25:5). 

Who is Baal Peor

Baal Peor is "The Lord of the Opening."  Baal Peor was worshiped with prostitution and other unclean activities involving the openings of the human body (avoiding becoming graphic).  It seems that if you were to pick out a perfect deity to carry out this plan this would be the one.  The warriors (wives and daughters) would be worshiping the deity by giving their bodies in this way.  The men of Israel would be enticed away from God by their sexual appetites. 

Who are the Midianites?

At first it seems confusing; Balak the king of the Moabites and the women of Moab perpetrated this incident.  However, as we dig a little deeper we discover that the Midianites were also aligned with Balak and his plan (Numbers 22:4, 7; Numbers 25:17-18).  However, we cannot say that all Midianites were involved in this plan.

One problem is that Moses was married to a Midianite.  His father-in-law was a Midianite priest (Exodus 2:16, 3:1).  Another problem is that Moses killed every male (Numbers 31:7) and yet about 200 years in future Midian subdued Israel for seven years (Judges 6:1).  How can this be?  The most reasonable explanation is that Moses did not intend for the Israelites to kill all the Midianites (which would have included his own household), but rather the Midianites responsible for the Peor incident.  In fact the passage says as much (Numbers 31:16). 

Conclusion

So in summary Balak goes to the Midianite kings and says we have to get rid of these people they are a threat to us.  He attempts to get a local prophet to pronounce a curse against them because he does not foresee a military victory.  This not being successful they come up with a plan to have women go to seduce the men of Israel and lead them to follow the Baal of Peor.  Presumably the Midianites send a caravan of 5 kings, soldiers along with their wives, daughters, and children.  The wives and daughters, who are old enough, go to the Israelites and entice them to have sex with them.   The plan works and some men of Israel converted to Baal of Peor (Lord of the Opening).  Moses then orders the execution of the men of Israel drawn into this cult.  Later on God commands Moses to tell the Israelites to take retribution against the Midianite caravan that perpetrated this plan. 

Now that we have the background let's take a look at the claim that this was a genocide or taking of sexual slaves.  

The claim that the women spared became sexual slaves makes little sense.  It would seem that all the women of age involved in the plan to entice the men of Israel were executed for their part in this plan.  If the intent was to take sexual slaves then it would not make sense to kill the very women who were willing to give their bodies sexually.  What is more if the women of age (old enough to have sex) were killed that would only leave very young girls.  This would make the claim even more outrageous saying that the Israelites took to pedophilia with little girls.  This claim is outrageous given the restrictions that are clearly laid out in the Bible.  The Jews (because of the Law of God) were very conservative sexually.  Pedophilia does not make sense and is a stretch and perverts the text in Numbers 31.

The claim of Genocide also not make sense.  Moses was close to the Midianite people through marriage.  He did not kill all Midianites as they show up later in the Bible.  It is more likely that Midianites from five cities with five kings agreed to take part with Balak in the plan to perform sexual warfare against the Jews.  And the killing of these Midianites was in the context of the war started by Balak and his Midianite allies. 

In terms of moral responsibility for the children.  I do not want to get into a debate of whether it was right or wrong to kill.  In war the right to kill is clouded by the right to defend oneself.  There have been many men, women, and children killed by warfare.  But to think that these Midianite parents took their children into a war seems outrageous.  They even pressed their adolescent daughters into service as sexual warriors.  It seems that if you are looking for moral high ground siding with the Midianites in this case makes little sense. 

Of course in most cases you will not get someone using this argument to look at the evidence of their claims against God, but at least now you know the whole story. 

God Bless You

Can God Create and Object So Big He Cannot Move It?

Image via Wikipedia

This is another supposed contradiction that Atheists like to throw out to challenge the idea of an all powerful (omnipotent) God.   The argument creates a dilemma in that God is either not omnipotent because He cannot create such a thing or He is not omnipotent because He cannot move it.  The problem though is not in the dilemma, but with the question itself.  The question is logically flawed. 

Remember for the Atheist (as I have said before) this is an absurd question.  Why a person would want to know if an imagined being could move and immovable object is confusing to me.  It would seem that putting energy in to such fiction would be a waste of time.  In short I would quickly say that any fantasy being could move any fantasy object without any problem while still creating something that is unmovable at the same time.  This is fantasy after all.

Moving on though to the question at hand.  The goal is to call into question the Omnipotence of God.  In my estimation we cannot in our finite understanding be aware of what omnipotence is.  If we could understand the most powerful force in the universe we would just be scratching the surface of understanding omnipotence.  If it takes 70,000 computer processors to figure out the merging of two black holes, then understanding omnipotence is a bit more processing power than my tiny brain can handle.  At best we can imagine that God is more powerful than the most powerful thing we can think of. 

My concern though is for the second half of the question.  First the size of the object.  For an object to be so big it would have to be larger than the force trying to move it.  Omnipotence by definition is infinitely powerful.  So in this case our object would have to be infinitely large.  Creating an infinitely large object would displace everything else in existence.  It would be the utter obliteration of everything (Including God Himself?).  This would make such an object a fantasy.  It would be an unreal object.  Can God create something that does not have the possibility of existing.  No!  Why?  Because it is a contradiction.  For an object to exist it must be finite and if it is finite then God can move it.  Something finite cannot be infinite.  So such an object cannot logically exist.

Next looking at the properties of Objects.  I would say that moveability  is a universal property of objects.  Throughout the universe we see objects in motion.  There is no corner in which we find something that is not moving in some way, shape, or form.  I propose that it is not possible for an immoveable object to exist.  Everything is in motion in some manner.  Even Black holes (in my limited understanding) are in motion.  So if the most massive objects that we are aware of are in motion then an object even more massive would have to be in motion as well.  What is more motion is measured relative to another object.  So in order to test whether it was not moved there would need to be two of these immoveable objects.  I am having trouble imagining one now we need two.  Hmm!

One more thing, the laws of astrophysics would indicate that as an object got larger it would reach such a size that the gravitational pull of that object would begin to pull itself into itself creating a black hole.  As that object became more massive then it would reach the mass of the universe.  What is larger than the mass of the universe?  I am not sure, but if our universe is moving I am not sure what a black hole more massive than our universe would be?  Singularity perhaps.  Could God move it?  Yes  we exist don't we.   So you see no matter the enormous mass of this supposed object it would have the quality of moveably.  An immoveable object is a contradiction in and of itself.  So it cannot exist. 

In conclusion then the question is illogical.  Illogical questions can be answered however you want, but you will never know nor can you arrive at the correct answer. 

I have a question for the Atheist.  Can any researcher create a computer simulation of an immoveable object?  They might want to start here and get up to speed.  This simulation took 70,000 processors three months to compute.  I wonder how they connected all those laptops :-) .  Here is what they produced. 

 

Well at least we know the object is bigger than the little guy on the left and also bigger than the guy on the right Notice the little ripple at the end as it takes the little black hole into itself. 

God Bless You

Related articles

• Giant Black Hole Swallows Smaller One in Breakthrough Simulation (space.com)

Euthyphro Dilemma

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

This is often presented as a puzzle by atheist because it becomes a circular argument or leads to conclusions that seem to contradict our concept of God.  In the grand scheme of things the whole dilemma is more complicated that it is simply stated. 

First recall the dilemma is absurd to the atheist. 

Is what I think is good (or what we generally call good) commanded by a non-existent being because we think it is good, or is it our thinking it is good because it is commanded by a non-existent being.

After a while one begins to wonder why atheist are so concerned dare I say threatened by absurdities?  It also makes me wonder why some atheists are so vehement against theists.  My advice to atheists, "Screaming and mocking the naive does not make them less naive, but it does make them less likely to listen to you."

As with most of these arguments the defining of words is important.  in this case the defining of a word is the central part of the dilemma.  In short this dilemma could be restated:

Does goodness define itself or does God define goodness. 

The other option is that neither goodness nor God exists.  Which is the way that most hard core atheists go. 

What is meant by "it."

Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

"It" seems to be "What is morally good."  If this is the case then the dilemma restated becomes:

Is what is morally good commanded by God because what is morally good is morally good, or is what is morally good, morally good because what is morally good is commanded by God?

This is the core of the defining good.  That is does good define good or does God define good

x commanded by y because x is x or x is x because x is commanded by y

"It" could also be the "what is commanded by God."  If that is the case then the dilemma restated becomes:

Is what is morally good commanded by God because what is commanded by God is morally good, or is what is commanded by God morally good because what is commanded by God is commanded by God?

In this case the first horn is a tautology and the second horn is illogical.

x is y because y is x or x is y because y is y

Either the dilemma is illogical or hinges on defining morally good. 

On the other hand "it" could be generic "the thing" implied by the argument which is the object of our speculation. 

Is what is morally good commanded by God because the thing is morally good, or is the thing morally good because the thing is commanded by God?

If this is the case then we need to define what the thing is before we can proceed to answer the dilemma. 

God commands moral good.  This is a true statement to the theist.  The problem occurs when you attempt to separate moral goodness from God.  Treating moral goodness as a quality independent of the nature of God creates a contradiction in the first horn of the dilemma.  If moral goodness is separate then it constrains God which then God looses his will, sovereignty,  and omnipotence.  However these problems dissolve when you consider that "the thing" to be the nature of God.  Restating the first part of the dilemma becomes:

What is morally good is commanded by God because God's nature is morally good.

If this is what is meant by moral goodness then the first horn of the dilemma is true.  It also answers the question of how to define goodness.  It is God's nature that defines moral goodness.

The second half of the dilemma becomes:

God's nature is morally good because God's nature is commanded by (proceeds from) God

A command is a statement proceeding from the speaker asserting his/her authority.  In this case God's nature then proceeds from God as a word (command).  In short God's nature both defines and acts according to what is morally good.  Interestingly this makes me think of two parts of the Bible that express this idea of goodness proceeding from God in the form of a command.

Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:3-4 (HCSB)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. Life was in Him, and that life was the light of men. That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it.
John 1:1-5 (HCSB)

In Genesis we discover that God commands into existence many things (in fact all things).  He also observes that it is good.  What makes this interesting is that His creation proceeding forth (by way of command) from His Nature (goodness) becomes an object which He can now describe as "good."  He is the definition, the creator, and the observer of goodness. 

One might object that this goodness is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.  That is to say an all-powerful evil god could do the same thing and call it good.   However God's goodness is immutable.  That is to say unchanging and fixed.  That which is evil and good cannot be arbitrary.  Goodness is fixed in God's nature.  Everything that is good in existence is then a reflection of God's goodness and/or proceeding forth from God.

Every generous act and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights; with Him there is no variation or shadow cast by turning.
James 1:17 (HCSB)

The passage of John identifies the command of God (Word, Logos in Greek) as the person Jesus Christ.  It continues to describe how The Word was God and created all things.  Continuing the Bible says that the Word has "life in Him."  The "life was the light of men."  The light is not darkness.  It shines into the darkness. Spiritual darkness is the absence of spiritual light.  Evil is often equated with spiritual darkness.  Evil then is not so much a quality that is opposite the quality of good as it is the quality of being without God.  This is fundamental to our understanding of Good and evil.  Which I will have a chance to elaborate in future posts I am sure. 

Back to the second half of the dilemma we see a hint of why God created.  God commanded because goodness proceeded from His nature.  It also makes the second half a true statement.  If both halves of a proposed dilemma are true then it is by definition a false dilemma. 

By this point most have lost interest in the dilemma I am sure.  For those of you that read through my philosophical ramblings; Why?  ;-) and thank you for your readership.   In short the dilemma is best answered with a question, "What do you mean by morally good?" And then proceed from that point with the theist position that moral goodness is defined by God's nature, if the atheist is uncommitted.  The rational position for the atheist is that moral goodness does not exist and that goodness is an arbitrary or beneficial opinion of the individual or community that holds it.  The implication of this view is that all manner of evil can be justified because it is a matter of lack of benefit or opinion that it is evil.  But more on that later.

God Bless You

Argument that Goodness and Omnipotence are Incompatible

Image via Wikipedia

Another argument that atheist put forth is one of so-called self-contradictory qualities that are attributed to God.  The most common is the the qualities of Goodness and Omnipotence (all-powerful).  The argument goes something like:

1) If God exists then He is all-good
2) If God exists then He is all-powerful
3) A good being corrects evil if it is in their power to do so
4) Evil exists and has always existed in the world
5) God has not acted (from 4)
6) If God unable to prevent evil He is not all-powerful
7) If God does not prevent evil, He is not good
8) Therefore an all-good, all-powerful God does not exist (From 5-7)

Remember this is an absurd argument from an atheist's perspective.  It is absurd in that they are assuming a priori something that they don't believe.  "If a non-existent thing exists."  So the first and second premise falls apart in the atheist's logic.  Arguing from absurdity makes any conclusion suspect. 

A second problem is what is good.  Goodness for the theist is a quality of God that extends to His creation (albeit imperfectly).  That is there is a standard for objective morality (goodness) that is given by God.  By what standard does the atheist use to determine what is good.  At best goodness is an opinion of the person making the judgment.  The first statement becomes "if God exists then he must be good according to my opinion."  The third statement becomes "a being ought to take what I think is good and correct what I think is evil."  The seventh statement becomes "If God does not prevent what I think is evil then He is not good in my opinion."

A third problem is in the assumption that God is impotent to do anything about the evil that exists making Him not all-powerful.  "If He can do something about the evil then why wouldn't He."  That a good being does not act in the face of evil does not automatically mean they are not good nor that they are powerless.  It could be that the being has another purpose, intent, or reason for evil to exist.  It could be that evil exists that goodness might be understood and appreciated.  It might be that evil exists that the good that comes from freedom can be fully realized.  It might be that evil exists because the fullness of time and ultimate goodness has not yet arrived.  There are many more missing bits of information that would lead a good being to not act or to delay their action. 

A forth problem is that it puts the arguer in the position of judge.  In one sense the arguer attempts to place themselves above God.  They are judging what is good, what should be corrected, and that God has not acted.  Let's assume that this person was justified to go where angels fear to tread. Then the arguer must be all-knowing themselves to make the determination that God is not good or that He has not acted.  But in fact they are making an argument from an incomplete understanding of the facts.  God may have acted imperceptible (or not in a manner our arguer expects), God may act in a time yet to come, maybe what we have judged bad may actually turn out good and so on.  The arguer cannot know all things so to make this argument without all the facts is giving one's opinion. 

Fifth, not really a problem more of an observation.  Often someone making this form of argument will have a deeply personal (often painful) circumstance, situation, relationship, and/or event that heavily influences their conclusion.  I believe that Christians would do well to not dismiss "the feeling that..." until they have "fully understood the underlying reason that..."  Even theist struggle with doubt about God's dealings with humanity in general and in our own lives specifically.  Shrill dismissals will not win a person over, but a compassion and an understanding heart just might.  Even great men of God have their moments of doubt.  Humble expressions of doubt will not make you seem weak, but rather it will make you honest. 

Lord, why do You stand so far away? Why do You hide in times of trouble?
Psalms 10:1 (HCSB)

I will say to God, my rock, "Why have You forgotten me? Why must I go about in sorrow because of the enemy's oppression?" My adversaries taunt me, as if crushing my bones, while all day long they say to me, "Where is your God?"
Psalms 42:9-10 (HCSB)

In conclusion then we have an atheist who makes an argument which essentially says, "In my opinion God does not exist."  For an atheist to state their opinion in logical form is not a very powerful argument.  On the other hand we also need to recognize that we can minister to a hurting person if they let us.  Let us be mindful that we might not add to another's pain, but could possibly bring them from spiritual darkness into The Light.

God Bless You

Answering Atheists

Image via Wikipedia

When and Atheist asks you to explain God, do not take the bait.  Usually it is in the form of a question of God doing something.  For example, "Why does God kill children?"  The question is insincere.  It is not being asked out of a genuine curiosity, but is a trap.  Our Lord was very good at recognizing these types of questions and responding effectively. 

When He entered the temple complex, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? Who gave You this authority?" Jesus answered them, "I will also ask you one question, and if you answer it for Me, then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Where did John's baptism come from? From heaven or from men?" They began to argue among themselves, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men,' we're afraid of the crowd, because everyone thought John was a prophet." So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."
Matthew 21:23-27 (HCSB)

Let me rephrase the question to make my point.  "Why does a non-existent being kill children?"  The question is absurd.  A non-existent being cannot do anything by definition.   Since the question is illogical to the person asking it there must be some other motive in asking it.  I think the best way to respond to these "Why does God do (or not do) something" questions from atheists is to turn the question back to them. 

"Do you believe that God exists?" 

"No"

"Then why are you concerned about something that does not exist doing something?  Your question seems absurd."

"So you are admitting the God does not exist?"

"No I am just trying to understand your question as you mean to ask it.  The Bible tells me to be weary of answering foolish questions.  Your question seems foolish to me since it is illogical."

Don't answer a fool according to his foolishness or you'll be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his foolishness or he'll become wise in his own eyes.
Proverbs 26:4-5 (HCSB)

A surface reading of this proverb seems to be self-contradictory.  So are we to answer the fool or not answer the fool.  But after some examination and contemplation of this proverb I believe that this is describing my point here.  If you answer the foolish question you become foolish.  If you answer by pointing out the foolish question you make the person asking the question aware of his foolishness. 

This is exactly what Jesus did with the Chief Priests above.  He pointed out the foolishness of their question by getting them to think through their own position.  They became aware of their own foolishness.  So he did not answer the question according to their foolishness, but He did answer the foolishness of the question. 

And so we, in defense of the Gospel must be very cautious to not assume that every question is sincere or that every question is an inquiry of further wisdom.  Sometimes the question is foolish.  Better to point out the foolishness of the question than to answer it, become foolish, and/or make the fool wise in his own eyes. 

The fool says in his heart, "God does not exist." 
Psalms 14:1 (HCSB)

Have a blessed day!